The U.S. Supreme Court case Pope Manufacturing Company v. Gormully & Jeffery Manufacturing Company in 1891 revolved around a patent dispute between the two companies regarding bicycle designs. The plaintiff, Pope Manufacturing Company, alleged that Gormully & Jeffery had infringed on their patents for certain features of bicycles and tricycles. However, the defendant claimed that these patents were invalid as they lacked novelty and were not an invention but merely improvements to existing technology or design changes which did not qualify for patent protection under law at that time. After reviewing the evidence presented by both parties, the court ruled in favor of Gormully & Jeffery stating that while some elements may be new combinations of old parts or methods; this alone does not constitute an invention worthy of a patent unless it produces a new and useful result.

In the dissenting opinion for Pope Manufacturing Company v. Gormully & Jeffery Manufacturing Company, it was argued that the patent in question should not have been invalidated. The dissenting justices believed that there was sufficient novelty and non-obviousness in the design of a bicycle pedal to warrant patent protection. They disagreed with the majority's view that previous patents and public use had made this particular design common knowledge or obvious to those skilled in mechanical arts at that time. Furthermore, they contended that even if some elements of the invention were already known, combining them into a new product could still qualify as an original invention deserving of legal protection under U.S patent law.